Transphobia - Who's really afraid?
The latest brouhaha on social media is the exchange between Arkansas State Senator Matt McKee and Dr. Gwendolyn Herzig, during which Senator McKee asked Dr. Herzig if Dr. Herzig, who claims to be a trans female, has a penis. Dr. Herzig’s answer, while not direct, was a resounding YES.
Watch the exchange for yourself, then come back and hear my thoughts on this.
First, I’ll admit the question from McKee was uncomfortable, but that’s the very issue here. Transsexualism is not an easy subject to discuss, and that mainly falls on the shoulders of trans and non-binary people and their “allies”. They refuse to discuss the substantive issues behind their ideology. Allow me to point out the unresolved issues in my mind…
Is gender fluid or not?
Gender fluid is presented as having a gender identity that is fluctuating. If someone is a man today, a woman tomorrow, all based on choice, then the confusion comes in at the moment of choice. Choosing something solid, even for a moment, from something that is declared as not solid (fluid) appears to be textbook schizophrenic.
The “wrong body” argument
I wrote about this here a while back. If a trans person is born in the wrong body, how can they have the right mind? But the question remains unanswered, and more importantly, forbidden to ask. Which, of course, makes me want to ask it more, because it’s right over the target. The weeping and gnashing of teeth that occurs when asking direct logic questions displays the fear of the TQIA+ community is always accompanied by name-calling, insults, and uncontrolled outbursts. There is an inability to rationally and civilly discuss the inconsistencies of the ideology that they insist must be followed by all of us.
Senator Matt McKee’s question of “Do you have a penis?”
When Sentator McKee asked Dr. Herzig “Do you have a penis?” the palpable gasp in the room was heard and felt. Dr. Herzig responded with only opinions that (1) the question was inappropriate, and (2) “That’s horrible.” Neither of these were supported by the why of substance. Why was the question inappropriate, and why was it horrible?
See, any website you pull up, or any book that presents TQIA+ ideology and you will find discussions of genitalia. This discussion is being presented to children. So, why is it inappropriate, or horrible to ask if someone claiming to be a trans female has a penis? They sure as hell feel comfortable talking to your kids about these very issues, including their genitalia, how to pleasure themselves, how to participate in kink, etc, and I would posit that the “inappropriate” and “horrible” should be applied to having these discussions with minors.
See, the TQIA+ community is calling Senator McKee’s question “sexual harassment” while at the same goddamn time, approaching your kids with these same questions, that undeniably revolve around sexual expression.
About fully informed consent
There is a term - fully informed consent. With someone claiming to be a doctor, discussions that are couched in the credentials of that doctor should be at the very least open to questions. The scope and reach of those questions that relate to the position being propounded should be “fluid,” to borrow a term. Getting offended when a substantive question of “Do you have a penis?” is asked, when you are claiming to be a trans female, is more evidence of the mental health nightmare that is the TQIA+ ideology.
If the question is inappropriate, and horrible, why? What happened to “Pride?” Why be ashamed to answer the question directly, unless it destroys your argument?
About sexual harassment
It is definitely irreconcilable to claim that this question of “Do you have a penis?” is sexual harassment, while simultaneously telling American minors that they should be open to lopping off genitals.
At least one appeals court has come out in favor of gender dysphoria being a disability under the ADA. This has to be accompanied by the observation that it substantially limits one or more major life activities. My tendencies to think that the major life activities of interacting with others, thinking, speaking, communicating, and mental stability are substantially limited is not at all discriminatory in this scenario, because that’s what the ADA demands.
Even so, transvestism, transsexualism, pedophilia, homosexuality and bisexuality are excluded as disabilities, under the ADA. For the record, I consider myself an ally of the LGB community. Ironically, I don’t see the LGB community trying to commandeer the ADA to give them protection. I do, however, see the TQIA+ community doing this with the recent case article linked in the prior paragraph.
The real claim that has yet to be explored or used is the disability that kids across America are regarded as having. They are regarded as automatically having gender dysphoria, and automatically having reproductive organs that are dysfunctional (errantly attached to their bodies) and having hormone systems that are dysfunctional, all of which are substantial limitations on these major life activities, and they are all “regarded as” disabilities. Teachers, schools, districts, and their associates outside of the school (other organizations allowed to teach this “regarded as” ideology) are culpable in this discrimination and coercive mental and physical assault on America’s kids.
To say that this is oriented to the normalization of pedophilia is no longer a stretch. That imagery is mainstream now.
Why would an ADA Advocate get deeply involved in speaking out about this?
Well, I’ve already paid the price, so I have nothing to lose from beating this drum. I’ve walked a path of poverty for 15 years out of principle, I have no home, I have no job, and I surely am willing to lose any and all other relationships if they demand I accept their position without full and complete discussion and resolution of that demand. I’ve lost my family, so everything else is surely not as important.
My daughter, who claims to be non-binary, is catalytic in the estrangement of all of my kids from relationship with me. There is no discussion, there is no understanding, or compassion or allowance to communicate. There is only hatred and anger for my differing position, which will forever remain differing, regardless of any law or other edict to the contrary, until this can be logically discussed and reasonably resolved. This same daughter that insists I call her “they/them” refuses to use my pronoun of “Dad.” In fact, none of my kids call me Dad. They haven't done this ideology (read: RELIGION) came into their awareness more than 10 years ago.
My kids call me transphobic because I dare to question their demands. I don’t insist, or even infer that they need to change their position. I do, however, insist on them defending it through civil discourse, if they demand I adopt their position. There is nothing unfair, “inappropriate,” or “horrible” about my insistence on this.
Asking just one question that they cannot answer leads to rage.
[Insert mental picture of Heath Ledger as Joker, saying everyone loses their minds…]
And that brings me to the title. The real trans - phobia is the phobia/fear of the TQIA+ community to rationally discuss their positions without resorting to hate, name-calling, irrational outrage, and even threats.
The real definition of transphobia should be having an ideology that you’re AFRAID to rationally discuss to the fullest degree.
If someone is promoting an ideology that includes kids altering their physical and physiological constructs (lopping off body parts, sewing on new ones, altering hormones and body responses), I would posit that the question of “Do you have a penis” goes to mental construct and directly to how this person, Dr. Herzig intends to use that same mental construct to affect my kids and your kids.
It’s horrible to ask that question? Well, in the words of the Dude, “Yeah, well, that’s just like your opinion, man.”
Maybe it’s just me that thinks this way, and if so, I’m okay with that.
P.D., JAY V SHORE, as Certified ADA Advocate
This is a fantastic analysis of critical thinking, discernment, logic when examining an ideology which is rooted in emotion. The chasm between hard virtues and soft virtues is near impossible to bridge. How can one soundly reason, with an unreasonable person? I submit, we must determine the basis on which someone would stand to declare anything right/wrong, true/false. Absent of a foundation, you are a rutterless sailboat subject to prevailing wind of a particular day. Critical thinking is a 4 letter word and must be attacked as ones compassion and empathy to those who lack critical thinking. The pandemic in the world is a mental health one, where moral relativism has eroded anyones ability to proclaim "truth". Truth is subjective on the foundation of SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS. Humans are their own GOD to proclaim personal truth.